Today, On 13th August, In the Supreme Court SIR row, Justice Surya Kant, the future CJI, told AM Singhvi, “Don’t portray Bihar negatively. The state leads in IAS, IPS, and IFS officers, showing the strength of its youth.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard several significant cases today, including the Special Voter List Revision (SIR) issued in Bihar.
This hearing also addressed petitions related to various political figures and constitutional matters.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi referred to the Lal Babu judgment he had mentioned earlier and asked the bench to consider the ECI affidavit filed in the Jharkhand matter in 2024, when a summary revision was also being conducted in Bihar.
The court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the Election Commission’s document verification process is an ‘anti-voter’ and exclusionary measure. It noted that the summary revision of the voter list previously included seven documents, while the SIR comprises 11, indicating that the SIR is beneficial to voters.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was reviewing the challenges against the Election Commission’s June 24 decision to implement the SIR in Bihar.
Despite the petitioners arguing that the exclusion of Aadhaar was discriminatory, the court observed that the extensive list of documents was, in fact, “actually inclusive.”
Justice Kant remarked during Singhvi’s remarks, stating,
“Don’t portray Bihar in this manner.”
He added,
“When it comes to All India Services, this state has the highest representation. A significant number of IAS, IPS, and IFS officers come from here. If the youth population is not inspired, this cannot occur.”
In response, Singhvi remarked,
“We have very talented scientists and others from there, but their representation is limited to a select group. Bihar has rural and flood-prone areas, as well as regions affected by poverty. What is the point of requiring a list of 11 documents for them? The reality is that most people in Bihar will not possess these documents. We are discussing genuine and authentic verification.”
He highlighted that only 1-2 percent of Bihar’s population holds passports, totaling around 36 lakh. The bench noted that this coverage of 36 lakh passports is significant.
Singhvi continued,
“The remaining two are questionable. So this impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards. It is not overlapping but substitution.”
He argued that people are being compelled to prove their citizenship, which he stated violates the 1995 Lal Babu judgment.
This judgment upheld voter rights and mandated that any action to remove a person’s name from the voter list should be based on sufficient evidence, allowing voters the opportunity to present their case.
In the previous hearing, the bench looked into whether the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process should aim to balance the deletion of bogus voters with the inclusion of genuine ones. It also examined the legality of changing official orders through press releases, the extent to which citizens carry the burden of proving their eligibility, and the practicality of the verification targets set for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
Kapil Sibal pointed out that in a small constituency, twelve individuals have been incorrectly marked as deceased, despite being alive.
Yogendra Yadav argued that the large-scale voter deletion exercise could end up excluding poor and marginalised groups, even though India already has a high level of voter registration.
He also raised doubts about the assumptions and methodology used for the process.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row